City of Lansing OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Brig Smith, City Atcomney April 22, 2010 Council President A’Lynne Robinson and Members of the Lansing City Council 10th Floor, City Hall Lansing, Michigan 48933 RE: Michelle Burkhardt v City of Lansing and Lansing Police Department Ingham County Circuit Court File No. 10-466-CL; Judge James R. Giddings ‘Dear Council President and Members: Please be advised that the lawsuit referenced above was recently brought to the attention of the Law Department. A copy is being provided for your reference. Very truly yours, Brig S City a Isp ‘Attachment S)ATTORNEY_ STAM ADMINISTRATIVECITYDEPNCOUNCHLLAWSUTT.DOC Fifth Floors, City Hall + Lansing, Michigan 48933 + (517) 483-4320 » Fax (517) 483-4081 « cityatty@lansingmi.govOxginal- Court 2nd copy - Plant oproved, SCAO a aan SS SB ‘STATE OF MIGHIGAN CASE NO, NUDIGIAL DISTRICT aaiaalCRCINT SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 1. uf Va 30h COUNTY PROBATE Toa ar Cour BGR TS. rare nna 313 W. Kalamazoo, Lansing, Michigan 48901-7971 MES R. GIDDINGS fifs name(s), address(es), and telephone noje). Defendants name(s), address(es), and ~ Michelle Burkert vey ottansing Lansing Police Deparment shone ro Cc ichard A. Meier (P38204) {30300 Northwestern Highway, Ste. 320 Farmington Hill, Michigan 48334 MPR 21 an rey 4% 4-Ob-0 aboot Attoeney ca (248-932-3500 { a 7 " tT = NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT: ineiesieigr GPllyoAHO Brite State of Michigan you are notified: 7. You are being sued 2, YOU HAVE 21 DAYS after receiving this summons to file a written answer with the court and serve a copy on the other party ortake other lawfulactionwith the court(28 days fyouwere served by mailor you wereserved outside this state). (woR2.171{C) 3, If you do not answer or take other action within the time allowed, judgment may be entered against you for the reliefdemanded in the complaint. wet TPR ZT D0 Pre 1 2010 “THis sumone & invalid unis Served on or before fs exiation dae. “This document must be sealed bythe seal ofthe court. [COMPLAINT] instruction: The following is information thatis required to bein the caption of every complaintand isto be completed by the plaintif, Actual allegations and the claim for reliof must bo stated on additional complaint pages and attached to this form. Family Division Cases Ci Thereisno other pending or tesolvedaction within the jurisdiction ofthe family division of crcuitcourtinvolving the family orfarily members ofthe parties. CJ An action within the jurisdiction of the family division ofthe circuit court involving the family or family members of the parties has Court Gerke MR VANTOR er vous etl toto CE EE EEE EE RE NONE PNE RSE 7 The action Uremains — Olisnolonger pending. The docket number and the judge assigned to the action are: [Bocket ro. aaa Barna L | General Civil Cases, Z) There Is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out ofthe same transaction or occurrence as alleged in the complaint CIA civil action between these parties or other parties arising out of the transaction or occurrence alleged in the complaint has been previously filed in _ Court. The action [Jremains — CJisnolonger pending. The docket number and the judge assigned to the action are: [Docket no ge Barns VENUE 8 Pain) residence (nade oly, Township, or wlage) Defendante) residence (ncude aly, township. oF vilgge) => Ingham Ingham 5 : n Place where acon arose or business condudied Ingham oaig/2010 ( Date —_— Gaara of alomeyplantit lfyourequire special accommodations touse the court because of a disability orf you require @foreign language:ntefpreter to help you fully participate in court proceedings, please contact the court immediately to make arrangements. Mc 01 (3108) SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT — NCR 2102(8)11), MOR 2.104, MOR 2.105, MCR 2.107, MOR 2.113(C)(2)a), (b), MCR 3,206(4)HAND DELIVERED — reitoy SEES atnored to Cy TiSbe" 4-BHO STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE INGHAM COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT MICHELLE BURKHARDT, Plaintiff, Case No. 10- fel -cL Vv Hon, CITY OF LANSING, JAMES B. GIDBINGS LANSING POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants. ! Richard A. Meier (P38204) Attorney for the Plaintiff 30300 Northwestern Highway, Ste. 320 Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334 248-932-3500 I COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 1. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Michigan. 2. Defendants are a Michigan municipality and department within that municipality, located in the County of Ingham. 3. All events which constitute these causes of action occurred within the County of Ingham. COUNT 4 — SEXUAL HARASSMENT 4. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 3 as if fully set forth herein verbatim. 5. Plaintiff has been a police officer for the City of Lansing for 21 years.6. In or around the years 2008 the plaintiff was called to the office of the legal adviser (male) for the Lansing Police Department. Plaintiff had been in court and the legal advisor indicated that he wanted to see the plaintiff after court. 7. Upon reporting to the legal advisor the plaintiff was asked to close the door of the legal adviser's office. 8. The plaintiff was ordered by the legal adviser to call the police dispatcher on her radio and let the dispatcher know she was with the legal advisor. 9. The legal adviser proceeded to take out a blue rubber glove and put it on his hand. 10. The legal advisor then proceeded to put the glove up near plaintiff's face. 11. The legal advisor pulled back the glove and squirted hand sanitizer/lotion into the glove and put a white substance into the glove to simulate sexual discharge. 42. The legal advisor again put the glove near the plaintiff. 13. These acts were unwelcome and created an intimidating, hostile and offensive employment environment. 14, Said acts resulted in severe emotion distress to the plaintif. 15. As a direct and proximate result of said acts the plaintiff has suffered damages, including, but not limited to emotional distress. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment in her favor and against defendant in an amount established by the proofs, together with interest, costs and attorney fees.COUNT 2 - ELLIOTT LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (gender discrimination) 16. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 16 as if fully set forth herein verbatim. 17. Between the years 2007 and 2010 the plaintiff has been subject to numerous disparate acts by her fellow officers and superiors which the department was fully aware of but failed to take appropriate remedial action. 18. Plaintiff was assigned to certain police runs without male backup. 19. In the year 2010 the plaintiff was reported to the CPS by defendant for alleged conduct that male officers were not subjected. (a phone conversation overheard by plaintiff in which a male officer was stated he would “kill his children). 20. The plaintiff was made to undergo a seven hour psychological test while her male counterparts were not so required. The plaintiff was put on administrative leave for acts that her male counterparts were no so disciplined. 21. The Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on gender. 22. Defendant has discriminated against plaintiff by treating her differently for the same or similar conduct. 23. As a direct and proximate result of said conduct the plaintiff has suffered damages, including, but not limited to lost wages, lost benefits and emotional damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment in her favor and against defendant in an amount established by the facts, together with interest, costs and attorney fees.COUNT 3 ~ RETALIATION FOR PARTICIPATING IN A SEXUAL HARASSMENT HEARINGS 24, Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 23 as if fully set forth herein verbatim. 25. In the year 2007 the plaintiff testified in a sexual harassmenthvorkers compensation case for a fellow officer of the LPD. 26. Following the testimony numerous forms of retaliation began to occur. These included; a) hiding plaintiff's police car, b) putting a bike in the squad room with a sign Michelle's ride, c) throwing plaintiffs clothes in the trash. 27. In the year 2009 the plaintiff again was part of a sexual harassment investigation. The plaintiff cooperated 28. Following the 2009 investigation the plaintiff was: a) subjected to two day long psychological evaluations, b) removed from patrol duty, and ©) placed on administrative leave without pay. 29. The Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act prohibits retaliation for cooperating in a sexual harassment investigation. 30. Defendant has violated said act in that defendant has retaliated against plaintiff for cooperating in sexual harassment investigations. 31. As a direct and proximate result of said retaliation plaintiff has suffered damages, including, but not limited to lost wages, lost benefits and emotional damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment in her favor and against defendant in an amount established by the facts, together with interest, costs and attorney fees.COUNT 4 —- WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT 32. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 31 as if fully set forth herein verbatim. 33, The department has enacted a administrative rule for each officer to report all improper conduct that an officer may become aware of concerning fellow officers. 34. On or about January 2010 the plaintiff overheard her sergeant and a fellow officer talking on the phone. The officer yelled at his children. “! will kill you and get new kids". 36. Plaintiff reported this conduct and to her superiors, an agency, ie. the police department. 36. Plaintiff was promptly placed on administrative leave. 37. The Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits retaliation for reporting a violation of administrative rule, 38. Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave for making said report. 39, As a direct and proximate result of said retaliation/discrimination plaintiff has suffered damages including lost wages and benefits. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for a judgment in her favor and against defendant in an amount established by the proofs, together with interest, costs and attorney fees. Richard A. Meier Dated: April 20, 2010Jury Demand Now Comes the Plaintiff and demands trial by jury. Richard A. Meier Dated: April 20, 2010